Thanks Chris (and Julian)
Im traveling again so this will likely be my only reply here.

The Irish Elk was used as an example because runaway sexual selection over hundreds of thousands of years ill prepared them for the resource change that occurred in the Younger Dryas cooling period 10-15,000 years ago. Since forage density declined, they couldn't obtain the nutrients they had become accustomed to during the warmer climate which were required to support such a large antler mass, so their bodies had to leach phosphorous and calcium from their bones - all to keep the horns big - thats the leading theory on why they died off. Humans too have been selected at being good at acquiring resources, and via sexual selection, moving up the mating ladder with conspicuous consumption being the current 'antlers'. And now we too, are going to be facing a time of 'environmental' change.

Fortunately we have something the elk did not. A huge forebrain of intellect, and culture, which can move faster than genes. But as the writer points out, via hedonic adaptation (and often addiction) we quickly habituate to new stimuli and need newer stimuli to feel the same 'rush', etc. This results in bigger and bigger antlers. We also are figuring out that we are not happier with 'more' (larger antlers), but ARE happier with more social interactions, community etc. Thus we cannot change our evolutionary wiring to want 'more' - we can only change how we define or perceive 'more'. So the 64,000 barrel question is how can we discard our 4 meter antlers (conspicuous consumption) that are requiring all our nutrients (oil, water, ecosystems etc)? Any answers will likely originate from individually and tribally selfish reasons (making changes because it improves ones own life or ones 'group', which is usually quite small in number). Knowing this is a huge advantage

After a few years of various gradients of fear/apprehension of upcoming dislocations, I now view Peak Oil almost as a gift - as it will force us to take a hard look at the social traps that are spinning and getting larger but not really getting too far (see Genuine Progress Indicator).

I do plan to write on this when I get back from mushroom hunting. (I'll be wearing camo so as not to scare them..;)

Thanks Chris for the extra bits. Can you dwell a bit mo on the following bits:

I heartily applaud Jeremy Leggett for comparing "our" understanding of fossil fuel reserves with that of the IPCC and showing the IPCC numbers most likely in error on the high side.

Which numbers? The oil, gas or coal reserve numbers they are using?

Just to make sure: the real data from the field on warming & ice melting on poles is happening faster than their worst case scenario (latest IPCC high scenario 2007).

Leggett's conclusion that it is all about coal is exactly right and where the climate change debate needs to focus in my opinion. This is the same conclusion reached by NASA's Dr James Hansen earlier this year in his pape

Very good point! A lot of people have been trying to hammer this point home elsewhere.

However, to make sure I understand where you stand.

This (burning the rest of the oil) is "no problem" IF and ONLY IF:

- we do not increase emissions significantly from ANY other resources (yes, coal is the most abundant, but there are other potential emissions sources too)

- we do not see the rapid depletion of oil as a problem by itself (cf. Oil Depletion Protocol)

That is, using the rest of the oil (rapidly) might be a problem for us, regardless of climate change AND considering our voracious energy appetite, we are going to be using lots of other emitting primary sources other than "all of oil" too.

Point six is the issue that resonates with me. How does peak oil and climate change intersect. Well, the fact is that oil and gas reserves have been wildly over-estimated. Because of that, there simply isn't enough of the stuff to lead to the catastrophic problems that are predicted in the models, and all of it is going to get used regardless of any concessions that might be gained regarding CAFE standards etc. Those fights, I suggest are counterproductive. Because of the long lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere, that carbon is going to be released. It is essentially a fait accompli. All we are arguing about is who gets to burn it and the relatively short time frame in which it is burned. Conservation makes sense in terms of mitigating the impact of scarcity, but not as a matter of dealing with climate change. The entire issue of avoiding the worst of what climate change has in store for our decendents is in how we deal with coal. And I would suggest that since any environmental struggle is something of a David and Goliath struggle against intrenched heavily funded economic interests, fighting on all fronts is doomed to failure. Focusing on one, coal, evens the odds to some extent. The battle cry should be "No new coal fired power plants without carbon sequestration" If we could pull that off, we have a chance.
SW

Someone drew my attention to a Stanford panel in November last year in which former Secretary of State George P. Shultz was reported to have said something about Peak Oil. Finally was able to track down what he said. He didn't explicitly refer to Peak Oil, but he did say:

"But I don't want to have you leave that oil question sitting on the table. And I want to say, looking at all the different things that go wrong because of oil, how many times do we have to be hit on the head with a two-by-four before we make a determined effort to use less oil."

(Link not handy, but it was called the Anxious Times Roundtable.)

Also was listening to the recent interview with Roger Morris on Electric Politics last night. Seemed like in some ways he wasn't yet fully attuned to the seriousness of Peak Oil, yet I think he also used the two-by-four metaphor.